05.14.12

Summary: The case against Android notwithstanding, the highest European court rules that APIs cannot be covered by copyrights

WHILE developing for Android, one must get accustomed to API changes and harness the subtle differences between Android versions, not just different device types with a wide variety of hardware specifications. But the API is what unifies everything and enables many programs to run on many devices, bringing value (and users) to the platform. Oracle, headed by a close friend of Apple’s spiritual leader, decided not only to attack Android with software patents but it also took a blow at the API level. In Europe, a new ruling from the highest court disqualifies Oracle’s strategy. To quote: “The European Court of Justice ruled this morning that the functionality of a computer program and the programming language it is written in cannot be protected by copyright.”

The European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday that application programming interfaces (APIs) and other functional characteristics of computer software are not eligible for copyright protection. Users have the right to examine computer software in order to clone its functionality—and vendors cannot override these user rights with a license agreement, the court said.

The jury deliberating over Oracle Corp.’s claims that Google Inc. infringed copyrights protecting Oracle’s Java technology reached a mixed decision Monday, which could leave Google on the hook for only a relatively minimal amount of damages.

No royalties should be paid based on European principles, but in the US it’s another story. Oracle is just trying to cause damage to Android and developers should speak out against it. In my personal blog I’ve begun writing about Android development. █

Share this post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

What Else is New

The ‘media coup’ of corporate giants (that claim to be 'friends') means that history of GNU/Linux is being distorted and lied about; it also explains prevalent lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux" and denial of GNU/Free software

A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren't EPC-compliant)

Normalisation of invalid patents (granted by the EPO in defiance of the EPC) is a serious problem, but patent law firms continue to exploit that while this whole 'patent bubble' lasts (apparently the number of applications will continue to decrease because the perceived value of European Patents diminishes)

The ways Microsoft depresses GNU/Linux advocacy and discourages enthusiasm for Software Freedom is not hard to see; it's worth considering and understanding some of these tactics (mostly assimilation-centric and love-themed), which can otherwise go unnoticed

The openwashing services of the so-called 'Linux' Foundation are working; companies that are inherently against Open Source are being called "Open" and some people are willing to swallow this bait (so-called 'compromise' which is actually surrender to proprietary software regimes)

What good is the EPC when the EPO feels free to ignore it and nobody holds the EPO accountable for it? At the moment we're living in a post-EPC Europe where the only thing that counts is co-called 'products' (i.e. quantity, not quality).

The marketing agency that controls the name "Linux" is hardly showing any interest in technology or in journalism; it's just buying media coverage for sponsors and this is what it boils down to for the most part (at great expense)

Microsoft reminds us how E.E.E. tactics work; Microsoft is just hijacking its competition and misleading the market (claiming the competition to be its own, having "extended" it Microsoft's way with proprietary code)

As the Linux Foundation transitions into the Public Relations (PR) industry/domain we should accept if not expect Linux.com to become an extension of PR business models; the old Linux.com is long gone (all staff fired)

The Linux Foundation works for whoever pays the Linux Foundation and sadly that usually means companies that aren’t dedicated to Linux, to Software Freedom or even to simple truths and to the Rule of Law

The discussion about “Linux” is being saturated if not replaced by misinformation and marketing of Linux’s competition — owing largely to googlebombing tactics that the Linux Foundation participates in rather than tackle